Re: [PATCH] fix PR c++/16117

[Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>]

>>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans <dje@google.com> writes:

Doug> Do we need a NEWS entry for the change in behaviour?

I don't think so.

Doug> Also, and this is just for discussion's sake,
Doug> I wonder if we'll ever need to handle nested quoting some day (blech :-)).

Let's just not.

Doug> Can you add text to indicate "quoting" here means single-quotes *only*?

I'll add a link.

Doug> Is 'class'::member intended to work? (static member or whatever)
Doug> [It works today, but I didn't check if that's intended.  I presume it is.]
Doug> If so, maybe a test to verify that still works as well?

I think it's probably better to leave it undetermined.

On the one hand, I don't want to implement rejecting it.
I think that's too harsh.

On the other hand, defining it removes any flexibility in the future.

Tom